*All statistics are taken from the Official Federal Courts' Website and reflect the calendar year through September. **Time in months from filing to completion.#This statistic includes cases which have been appealed in higher courts. ##This is the total number of months that any judicial posts had spent vacant that year.

On April 16, 2014, Judge Lucy H. Koh granted SuccessfulMatch.com's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, specifically, that the website would keep private their STD- and HIV-positive statuses.[3]

In the underlying case, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 joined the site PositiveSingles.com, a website operated by SuccessfulMatch.com, which was marketed toward daters with sexually transmitted diseases. They asserted that they were "lured" into joining the site by the defendant's "empathetic sounding statements." Plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of the fact that the details of their "anonymous" profiles (i.e., their STD statuses) would be available to all of SuccessfulMatch.com's users. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in July 2013, alleging violations of California's deceptive business practices law as well as its Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[3]

The defendant website company filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Judge Koh granted it, noting that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 "failed to specifically allege that they saw any of the statements that they claim [were] misleading, or how the website statements impacted their decisions to register with defendant's website." In addition, Koh wrote that the plaintiffs' claims failed due to the fact that they did not "allege how knowledge of defendant's omissions about affiliated sites would have impacted [their] decision to register for PositiveSingles.com."[3]

In an ongoing case filed in 2009 against the NCAA by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, college student-athletes alleged that while the organization used their images for its own profit, the athletes themselves were prohibited from being paid for their efforts. In October 2013, Judge Wilken refused to dismiss the student-athletes' complaint. In November 2013, Wilken partially certified a class of athletes who sought an injunction against the NCAA's policy, noting that without an injunction, "all class members - including both current and former student-athletes - would potentially be subject to ongoing antitrust harms resulting from the continued unauthorized use of their names, images, and likenesses." Shortly thereafter, the O'Bannon plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that Wilken issue a decision in their favor without a trial. In December 2013, the NCAA filed a counter-motion for summary judgment, arguing that participation in college sports could not be likened to "exploitation" because student-athletes derive many benefits from it (e.g., admissions, scholarships, et cetera).[4][5][6]

On April 14, 2014, Judge Wilken ruled that the NCAA could not argue that its failure to pay male athletes for playing football and basketball was subsidizing women’s athletics. In her decision, Judge Wilken relied upon a prior ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, noting that it was "improper to validate a practice that is decidedly in restraint of trade simply because the practice produces some unrelated benefits to competition in another market."[7] Judge Wilken further ruled that full game broadcasts of sporting events were not considered commercial speech, but reserved judgment on whether television broadcasters had "an unfettered right to broadcast entire sporting events without regard for the participating athletes’ right of publicity."[7]

On December 19, 2013, Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted class certification in a case filed against Nissan over the car manufacturer's faulty Delta Stroke Sensor breaking system in model year 2004-2008 Armadas and Titans and Infiniti QX56s manufactured prior to 2008. In the underlying case, plaintiffs Brandon and Erin Banks and David Soloway experienced brake failure while driving their cars, alleging that the system was defective and malfunctioned in such a way as to allow up to a 60 percent loss of power to the vehicle's brakes. The plaintiffs claimed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted Nissan about hundreds of complaints the agency received about the faulty breaks, but that the car company failed to tell current owners or potential customers about the known defect. Because the plaintiffs' pleadings exhibited sufficient commonality, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of legal representation, Judge Hamilton ruled that the class deserved certification, specifically, "[a]ll consumer residents in California who own 2004-2008 Nissan Armada, Titan (equipped with [Vehicle Dynamic Control]), and Infiniti QX56 vehicles manufactured before April 1, 2008 . . . and all consumer residents in California who do not presently own Affected Vehicles but incurred monetary loss caused by the failure of the Delta Stroke Sensor in their Affected Vehicles."[8][9]

On November 27, 2013, Judge Susan Illston awarded nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the children of a woman who was shot 12 times by a police officer without a "legitimate law enforcement objective." In March 2006, Karen Eklund stole a car and led police on a high-speed chase before ramming the stolen vehicle into a police car. California Highway Police officer Stephen Markgraf was the only one to open fire, emptying his weapon into the side of the stolen car, killing Eklund. Eklund's daughters, minors at the time, filed a wrongful death suit, and a jury awarded them $30,000 each in damages. The Ninth Circuit later overturned that jury verdict in April 2011 based on Markgraf's qualified immunity defense, meaning that as a state official, he was shielded from liability because he was performing the discretionary functions of his job. At that time, the court also vacated the children's award of attorneys' fees. The court's qualified immunity ruling was withdrawn one year later, in April 2012. In April 2013, the federal appeals court reconsidered the case and decided that Markgraf was not immune to the allegations levied against him because he "acted with the purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective." Markgraf attempted to further appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, but his writ of certiorari was rejected in October 2013. The next month, Judge Illston awarded Eklund's daughters approximately $908,961 in attorneys' fees and expenses ($559,861 for the lower court trial, $288,080 for the various appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and $57,428 for the fee petition).[10][11][12][13]

On October 16, 2013, Judge Donna Ryu ruled that California's fishing license fee was unconstitutional due to its tendency to favor in-state applicants over out-of-state applicants. In the underlying case, out-of-state commercial fisherman filed suit over the fee differential charged for their commercial fishing licenses and vessel registration, costs that were usually to two to three times more expensive simply by virtue of the fact that they were not California residents. The fishermen alleged that the difference in pricing infringed upon their right to equal protection and their right to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of another state. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment (i.e., a judgment in their favor without a full trial). Defendant Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Game, claimed that by charging nonresidents more money, the state was simply "recouping [its] fair share" of what was being used by citizens hailing from other states. Judge Ryu did not agree, and instead found that California was offering an unfair business advantage to its own residents. Judge Ryu denied Bonham's motion for summary judgment, and granted that of the fishermen, declaring the licensing fee structure unconstitutional.[14]

Three businessmen by the names of John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz were barred from opening a gun store within 500 feet of a residential area due to a county zoning law. They filed suit on June 25, 2012, claiming that their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, due process, equal protection had been infringed. Their suit was first dismissed by Judge Susan Illston, where she mentioned that under the United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the zoning law was a “presumptively valid restriction.” The businessmen amended their complaint and refiled it, but Judge William Orrick III later dismissed the case on September 9, 2013, writing that not only had they failed to allege the county denied their land use permit without a rational basis, he was “unaware of any authority stating or implying that the Second Amendment contemplates a right to ‘convenient access to a neighborhood gun store.’” The businessmen filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 23, 2013.[15][16]

Judge Wilken presided in the highly publicized case involving Electronic Arts franchise EA Sports. The well-known brand was being sued over the likeness of college athletes used in video games like NCAA Football 2010. The suit was on track to qualify for class-action status after three years of ongoing litigation.[17]

The athletes sued the technology company over unfairly using the likenesses of college athletes in its games without compensation.[18] In response to emails suggesting that EA Sports did use actual athletes' likenesses, a spokesman said, "Discovery and the plaintiffs' own depositions clearly indicate that the NCAA never marketed student-athlete likeness nor prohibited student-athletes from profiting from their likeness when their eligibility was completed."[17][19]

In July 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, 2-1, a ruling that stated EA Sports was not protected under the First Amendment. The court found that EA did not prove that its game was "sufficiently transformative" to be protected speech.[20]

Judge Wilken twice denied government motions to dismiss a lawsuit against California's insurance program CalPERS and its long-term care program. The lawsuit was filed by three gay and lesbian couples and included not only CalPERS, but also the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service. The lawsuit aimed to invalidate CalPERS policy on gay and lesbian couples and domestic partnerships that barred them from access to the insurance provider's long-term care program. Wilkin justified her decision, writing, "Although the Supreme Court has not established that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect class for purposes of the equal protection doctrine, it held in Romer [v. Evans] that gays and lesbians, as a class, are at least protected from burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer anti-gay animus and devoid of any legitimate government purpose." The lawsuit targeted government policy within the IRS and the Treasury Department which prevented access to benefits for same-sex couples, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the Obama administration has announced that it would no longer defend because it deemed it unconstitutional.[21]
Judge Wilken ruled that the CalPERS policy on gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional in May 2012. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[22]

A federal lawsuit alleged that California's Proposition 8, which forbade same-sex marriage in California, and was approved by voters in the November 2008 election, was unconstitutional. This lawsuit was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker in June 2009, and included a request that his court issue a federal injunction suspending Proposition 8.

Walker spoke about the case on June 30. Some of his remarks and reactions included:

The case raised issues that might need to be considered at a trial, "including the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and the intent and effects of the state constitutional amendment."[23]

He said he was not inclined to issue an injunction, but instead to move speedily to a trial.

Blocking or suspending Proposition 8 before a trial might "inject still further uncertainty in an important area of concern and interest to the state and its citizens."[24]

Walker's position that a trial was needed was unpopular with Brian Raum, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who represented the sponsors of Proposition 8. Raum didn't think a trial was necessary because the only issues in dispute were issues of law.[23]

On July 2, 2009, Judge Walker moved to give fast-track status to the lawsuit in which plaintiffs sought to overturn Proposition 8. Judge Walker agreed to let proponents for Proposition 8 intervene in the case to defend the validity of the measure, though California Attorney GeneralJerry Brown repeatedly claimed that the measure was unconstitutional.[25]

During the hour-long hearing that took place in a packed courtroom, Judge Walker ordered the parties involved in the case to file by August 7, 2009 their case management proposals laying out the facts they agreed on, the facts that still needed to be tried, and a plan on how to proceed with the case.[25]

On August 14, 2009, the judge asked both sides to issue their final briefs on how to proceed on the Proposition 8 case as there could be a possibility the case would move on without a trial. Both sides were divisive on which additional litigants should be involved in the case, which was the main roadblock towards moving to trial. The two sides agreed to be the only litigants in the case despite the City of San Francisco and other gay advocacy groups that wished to participate.[26]

On August 19, 2009, Judge Walker approved the case management plans of both sides and set a trial date for January 11, 2010. At that time, the judge rejected motions to allow additional litigants in the case, including some gay rights advocacy groups and the City of San Francisco. Judge Walker felt that by allowing additional litigants in the case, it would deprive the right of a speedy trial for both sides.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag;
name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title

Later, on October 2, 2009, Judge Walker ordered supporters of Proposition 8 to hand over their campaign strategy documents to the judge. Judge Walker examined campaign documents to see if supporters of Prop. 8 acted in a matter of prejudice. If Judge Walker found the ballot measure discriminatory, then the ballot measure's results could have been invalidated.[27] Backers of Proposition 8 filed a motion to gut the January trial over past Supreme Court of the United States precedent.[28][29]

An appeal was filed as to the judge's order to hand over campaign strategy documents on Proposition 8. Groups in favor of the ban on gay marriage in California appealed the ruling over issues of freedom of speech and perceived harassment. On October 23, 2009, Walker ruled that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to stop his order.[30]

On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the opinion, he wrote, "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”[31]

In 2011, Judge Walker came under attack for failure to recuse himself from the Prop. 8 case after he disclosed that he is gay. He announced on April 6 that he had been in a 10-year relationship with another man and added that he never considered his sexual orientation as relevant to the case. "It would not be a positive development if a judge’s sexuality, national origin or gender was pertinent to handling a case. That would be a slippery slope."[32]

Appeal of Walker's ruling

On Tuesday, February 7, 2012, a three-judge appellate panel issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown which upheld the rulings by district court judges Vaughn Walker and James Ware. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt, and Randy Smith, stated that "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The panel was split in its decision with Judge Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld both the decisions of Chief Judge Ware as well as Senior Judge Walker, whose original decision was challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long-term relationship with another man at the time of the case.[33] For expansive coverage of the ballot measure and ensuing legal controversy, please see: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008).

In a separate ruling, on February 9, 2012, the same panel refused to release the videos from the original trial. The panel held that Walker "promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future." Because of this, the judges determined that "[t]he integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge’s representations to the parties were solemn commitments," and that the videos should not be released.[34]

On August 18, 2009, Judge William Alsup issued an injunction against the University of California-Berkeley over construction of a new computer research center for the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of the injunction, the judge ordered environmental impact studies on Strawberry Canyon before any construction could begin on concerns of environmental damage.[35]
Because the project was funded fully by the federal government, Judge Alsup found it was important that a federal agency conduct environmental testing in the interest of the project's sustainability.[35] After an extensive study by the Department of Energy, it was found that there would be no significant impact to the area where the facility would be built. Judge Alsup ruled in November 2011 that the computer research center construction could begin.[36]

On March 29, 2010, Judge Illston authorized a class-action lawsuit against nine television makers over allegations of price fixing. The lawsuit was filed by a group of direct buyers who bought the televisions made by the two companies from 1999 to 2006. As part of the certification, customers in 22 other states and the District of Columbia could join in the lawsuit.[37]
In October 2012, it was announced that the manufacturers did participate in price fixing on LCD flat-panel screen televisions. The television makers agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement which directly refunded consumers who were affected by the scheme.[38]

Judge Seeborg presided in a case over privacy issues involving the widely used social networking site Facebook. A lawsuit was filed in 2007 over an application called Beacon that kept track of a person's purchasing habits and web-browsing activity. As part of the settlement, Facebook agreed to start a non-profit organization to advocate web privacy instead of splitting the money between 1.3 million plantiffs.[39]

On September 21, 2009, Judge White ruled that the federal government did not properly examine the environmental impacts of sugar beets created by genetic type engineering. Despite the ruling, a separate hearing was originally scheduled on October 30, 2009, in which the judge remedied a resolution to the case.[40]
In August 2010, Judge White found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not properly ascertain the environmental impact of genetically engineered sugar beets before granting approval. As a result, the judge disallowed the cultivation of the vegetable before a new impact statement was conducted and approval granted from the USDA.[41]

On November 30, 2009, Judge White denied a motion to a lawsuit filed by two community organizers in Berkeley, California, over computers and storage devices seized in a 2008 raid. The FBI seized computers over allegations of threatening e-mails sent to UC faculty members. The organizations sued the FBI over violations of the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[42]

On October 19, 2009, Judge Wilken issued an order to the State of California to halt cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program that were scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2009. The judge found the state's timing towards the cuts gave too little notice to care providers and recipients of the IHSS program and did not give a proper framework for appeals.[43]

In June 2009, Judge Wilken blocked a $2-per-hour wage cut for tens of thousands of in-home care workers for elderly and disabled Californians which was ordered by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[44] Schwarzenegger cited this as an example of federal judges interfering with the rights of California to rule itself.[45]
However, some parts of the California government blocked Wilken's order, and on July 13, 2009, Wilken re-ordered state officials to remove procedural obstacles immediately. Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties were affected by the plan that temporarily reduced pay for 60 days.[44] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Schwarzenegger administration's request for a stay of Judge Wilken's decision on July 14, 2009.[44]

Judge Hamilton was the presiding judge in a case involving a stock and lending scheme that would have resulted in the government losing tax revenue. Charles Cathcart, an economist, was ordered not to engage in a scheme that made promises to shareholders of not paying capital gains taxes in exchange for trading stocks into high interest loans. Cathcart had previous orders from the judge to not engage in the investment scheme.[46]

Judge Illston was the presiding trial judge in the trial of baseball legend Barry Bonds. Bonds faced trial in Judge Illston's courtroom on March 2, 2009. On November 16, 2007, Bonds was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice during testimony involving BALCO in which Victor Conte and former San Francisco Giants trainer Greg Anderson were convicted on steroid trafficking charges. During the criminal investigation leading up to the grand jury indictment, evidence was obtained that included positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other athletes that were implicated by the scandal.[47]
Bonds faced charges on four counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice, which together carry a maximum penalty of 30 years in jail.[48][49] In the end, Judge Illston ruled a mistrial on three charges that Bonds made false statements, and Bonds was only charged with one count of obstruction of justice.[50]

On September 29, 2009, Judge Illston ruled against a land management plan by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for a California desert. Judge Illston found that a plan to designate 5,000 miles of the West Mojave desert for off-road vehicle use did not take into account environmental impacts on the desert.[51]

History

The Northern District of California was established by Congress on September 28, 1850. Congress had organized California into two judicial districts, the Northern and the Southern, with one judgeship for each court. The district courts were not assigned to a judicial circuit, and thus were granted civil jurisdiction the same as U.S. circuit courts, except in appeals and writs of error, which are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

After the death of the judge of the Southern District, in 1852, Congress passed a statute to give the Northern District judge authority over the Southern District as well. Two years later, the Southern District judgeship was reauthorized.

In 1855, the United States Circuit Court for the Districts of California was established. This repeal the trial court jurisdiction of the California federal district courts. The courts still continued to exercise appellate jurisdiction in certain cases involving land claims.

In 1863, the California Circuit was abolished and the Tenth Circuit was created. This circuit consisted of the California and Oregon judicial districts and eliminated the remaining appellate jurisdiction of the district courts of California.

In July 1866, the federal judiciary was organized into nine circuits. California's single judicial district, with one authorized judgeship, fell into the Ninth Circuit.

Twenty years later, the districts were again divided into the Northern and Southern districts, with one judgeship each.

The Evarts Act of 1891 reorganized the federal judiciary, establishing the federal district courts as trial courts which appealed to the circuit courts of appeal.

Over time, thirteen judicial posts were added to the Northern District for a total of fourteen posts.[52]

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Northern District of California:[52]

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in one of the federal courts, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy in the office of chief judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position. Unlike the Chief Justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion.[53][54]